A bit of background for this one. John Shuck has posted a series that he calls A New Reformation. It seems as though his intent is to posit a "New Reformation" based on the work of such scholars as Spong, Funk and others. This is one of the series.
I am enjoying this series on A New Reformation. Here is my pal, Bishop John Shelby Spong. I like him. I don't like him because he ticks off the fundies, but I have to say, that is an added bonus.
The good bishop nailed these theses to the internet over ten years ago. They are a bit dated and actually familiar-sounding now. They are more fully outlined in his book, Why Christianity Must Change or Die.
They are posted all over the web. Here is an accompanying article that goes with them in The 4th R. Like Holy Writ, they have slight variations from place to place. Here is a version I found on the website of St. Peter's Church, Nottingham.
1. Theism as a way of defining God, is dead. God can no longer be understood with credibility as a Being, supernatural in power, dwelling above the sky and prepared to invade human history periodically to enforce the divine will. So, most theological talk today is meaningless unless we find a new way to speak of God.
2. Since God can no longer be conceived in theistic terms, it becomes nonsensical to seek to understand Jesus as the incarnation of the theistic deity. So the Christology of the ages is bankrupt.
3. The biblical story of the perfect and finished creation from which human beings fell into sin is pre-Darwinian mythology and post-Darwinian nonsense.
4. The virgin birth, understood as literal biology, makes the divinity of Christ, as traditionally understood, impossible.
5. The miracle stories of the New Testament can no longer be interpreted in a post-Newtonian world as supernatural events performed by an incarnate deity.
6. The view of the cross as a sacrifice for the sins of the world is a barbarian idea based on primitive concepts of God that must be dismissed.
7. Resurrection is an action of God, who raised Jesus into the meaning of God. It therefore cannot be a physical resuscitation occurring inside human history.
8. The story of the ascension assumed a three-tiered universe and is therefore not capable of being translated into the concepts of a post-Copernican space age.
9. There is no external, objective, revealed standard writ in Scripture or on tablets of stone that will govern our ethical behaviour for all time.
10. Prayer cannot be a request made to a theistic deity to act in human history in a particular way.
11. The hope for life after death must be separated for ever from the behaviour-control mentality of reward and punishment. The church must abandon, therefore, its reliance on guilt as a motivator of behaviour.
12. All human beings bear God’s image and must be respected for what each person is. Therefore no external description of one’s being, whether based on race, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation, can properly be used as the basis for either rejection or discrimination.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Craig, I presume that you're posting all this for documentary purposes, and NOT to imply any sort of endorsement.
If this version of Spong's list is accurate, it also contains at least one rather noticeable inconsistency.
On the one hand, we're told, "There is no external, objective, revealed standard writ in Scripture or on tablets of stone that will govern our ethical behaviour for all time." (#9) And we're told, "The church must abandon, therefore, its reliance on guilt as a motivator of behaviour." (#11)
And yet the list concludes with this double claim.
"All human beings bear God’s image and must be respected for what each person is."
Never mind the question of how Spongs know that all of us bear God's image if he rejects the authority of written revelation and the question of what this claim even MEANS to Spong given his rejection of Christian theism: he seems to think that at least one assertion from written revelation does indeed "govern our ethical behaviour for all time."
And the claim that we "must" respect other people begs the question: or else what? If there are no eternal consequences for our behavior, just why should people believe that they have a duty to do anything?
Here's the larger question:
Who's the biggest buffoon, Spong or the person who thinks he's cool?
I don't for the life of me understand why the Spongs of the world even care to be called "Christian". There isn't much about Christianity that they like. It must be due to not wanting a regular job. Talking trash under the guise of serious thought is a lot easier and the John Shucks of the world keep the Spongs in cash.
Bubba,
I am posting this for a couple of reasons.
First, to document what is accepted within the "big tent" of the PCUSA.
Second, to obliquely follow up on my earlier thread with Dan. I would submit that the opinions expressed by these ordained PCUSA pastors do, in fact, constitute heresy (is regards to the historical teachings of the PCUSA).
I had intended to do a post to explain why, but haven't had time to do so.
John Shelby Spong should in no way be confused with a scholar simply because he's written some marginally popular books. (Joel Osteen has done as much.)
It's bad enough people think of him as a bishop in God's Church.
"Who's the biggest buffoon, Spong or the person who thinks he's cool?"
They are both pretty bad, but I'd go with the person who thinks he's cool. Spong is at least profiting from his ridiculous assertions. What a fraud. If he really believed those things he should dump his collar and quit calling himself a Christian.
It is like me saying, "I'm a Muslim. I love bacon, have Jewish friends, support Israel, think the Koran is wildly in error, etc., but I'm a Muslim."
Post a Comment